Posted by NunYa Bidness on 10/30/05 22:37

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:25:01 GMT, bv@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion) Gave
us:

>In article <g6s3m158ed55vemdut97uk6igja6kij4l0@4ax.com>,
>NunYa Bidness <nunyabidness@nunyabidness.org> wrote:
>>On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:15:49 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> Gave us:
>
>[hunks of text brutally hacked away by Lizzie Borden].

Lizzy was innocent.
>
>>>Once upon a time, the studios and the theatre chains had
>>>money.
>
>> They still do, they just don't know how to use it, or distribute it
>>correctly among the company's members.
>
>Has it not always been so - the money goes to those at the top and
>when they want more money instead of trying to figure ways to
>increase income they spend the same amount trying to reduce costs -
>which often decreases income :-(

Serves them right then.

>>> They could have introduced digital in a big way,
>>>they could have produced better film showing devices or
>>>at least used them as they should have been used.
>
>> That is absolutely true. Had they embraced what we now know to be
>>they best method for storing what gets filmed, that being digital
>>mediums, We would / could have Film On Demand personal theaters where
>>customers do not need to view a film with 200 or more strangers, many
>>of which doing things you wouldn't do during a film screening. There
>>should be movie kiosks everywhere to watch a new release.
>
>One of the joys of watching a good movie with a good audience is
>the shared reaction of lots of laughter and sometimes applause.

A good audience is hard to find.

>Last week there was applause after the showing of Good Night and
>Good Luck. The audience was a bit older. It looked like
>it could have been rated NC-50 :-)
>
>> Digital delivery at the theater level, should have happened ten
>>years ago. Right around the same time as the advent of MPEG2.
>
>>> A live
>>>projectionist to monitor problems that could occur with the automated
>>>systems they have. But, they didn't do any of this.
>
>> The don't even need that really.
>
>>>Instead, they cheapened everything, right down to the poor development
>>>of the film stock we often see now.
>
>> Within another ten years, well be "filming" in the digital realm.
>
>> Remember when CDs came out how there weren't many "DDD" discs
>>around? Check the numbers now.
>
>For modern recordings digital is much cheaper. At first it was
>quite costly - and the big Sony 32-track digital would set you back
>well over $125,000 which was twice as much as our Studer A-800.

Now, we can do it on our PCs. There is still, however, an analog
link at the instrument level. Like guitar pickups, and feeds. I know
there are some direct to digital gear out there, but I didn't think it
was mainstream yet.

>But now you can get digital devices that record 24-tracks
>simultaneously for under $3000. It's the old 'cheaper is better -
>even when it isn't'. And a lot of disks were never properly
>labeled in the early days.
>
>And have YOU really checked CD's lately. I just checked a stack
>and only about 1 in 10 have any labeling like that anymore.

We cared. Idiots these days don't care. The evidence is in the
content they choose. Half of it barely qualifies as music, and has
little imaginative content. The other half spews violent lyrics that
the idiots claim does not affect their personalities. I guess not...
it's too fucking late for that.

> It was
>a selling point at one time - and I bet most people would have no
>clue what it means if you found a CD with it on it and pointed it
>out to them.

I'd bet that it is better than 90% that do not have such clues.

>> Actually, it was the cable companies that did most of the pissing and
>>moaning about HDTV. Their equipment upgrade costs were their reason.
>
>And locally there is far more HDTV on cable than there is on the
>air.

Yeah, they saw the cash cow that it was. The test market was
actually high speed internet access. Once they found out they could
screw us on that, they started in with everything else. All the
millions they make on internet subscribers goes into the cable
infrastructure, not the internet set-up. We should have 200TB Usenet
servers with NO deleted groups, and we should be getting the spam
stopped at their node(s), not ours. Instead, the millions they make
on us goes back into the cable services. We got screwed, Service
took a dive, and they actually called a reduction in bandwidth
(capping) an "upgrade". I still have the letter I was sent by the
president of the firm declaring as such.

I think they think we are retards. The opposite is true. Ray Nagin
is a perfect example of that.
>
>> TV stations get their gear bought by their network carrier.
>
>Since when.

Sure, they have to take it from their budget, but you can rest
assured that the uplink encoders, and downlink decoders that General
Instrument has in place at EVERY TV station in this country and many
other in the world were bought by their respective carriers. The HDTV
gear will be as well. The only things the stations pay for themselves
are the transmitters and towers.

> Locally one of the major network stations drops
>some evening programming so they can show some locally run content
>- as they make far more money selling local ads than they get paid
>by the network.

But they didn't buy the decoder gear, which costs like $1.2M per
rack. Some stations need several racks to operate.

[Back to original message]